#analysisreview

Observations:

1. I sometimes do analysis without providing sufficient evidence. That was something that was noted for my analytical paragraph that was for the in-class workshop, for example, with these sentences: "Prospero makes a point of calling Caliban harsh dehumanizing names, and manipulating Ariel with guilt in order to coerce him into doing his bidding once again. Prospero uses Sycorax, Caliban’s mother and Ariel’s previous master, to lower Caliban and Ariel’s statuses in order to manipulate and take command over them." I should have added in a quote from the text to show the exact places where Prospero uses degrading and threatening language towards Caliban and Ariel in order to manipulate them. A revised version of this sentence could be something like: Prospero uses Sycorax, Caliban's mother and Ariel's previous master, to degrade Caliban, "Thou poisonous slave, got by the Devil/ himself/ Upon thy wicked dam, come forth!" (1.2.320-322) and Ariel, " Dost thou forget/ From what a torment I did free thee?...Thou liest malignant thing! Has thou forgot/ The foul witch Sycorax who with age and envy/ Was grown into a hoop?" (1.2.251-259) in order to manipulate and keep control of them. I need to work on being able to integrate quotes while still maintaining fluidity with my argument and throughout my writing in order to keep my reader from being confused and/or unconvinced.

Target Area: (analysis 1) C1: Idea not yet grounded in evidence or analysis Original Excerpt: Ali allows readers to relate to the wolf to the point that they can empathize with him, even making it seem as though it is Little Red’s fault for her misfortune because she chooses to speak with him. The key word “mustn’t” implies that Little Red’s choice to speak with him was not a sound decision on her part, especially knowing that it is not something she should do. Revision: Using the key word, “mustn’t,” the Wolf implies that Little Red’s misfortune occurred because of her decision to speak with him because he believes that, for her sake, she should not have talked to anyone she does not know. Reflection: My intention was on bridging the two sentences (one which is has an idea and the other which contains the evidence). I think my revision gets rid of the loophole of me making the assumption that she knows what a “stranger” is and the blame she gets for possibly not knowing that she shouldn’t talk to strangers.

Target Area: (analysis 3) J1: Positions expressed independent of analysis, such as moral, ethical, or artistic positions or personal opinions Original Excerpt: Although the quality may not be as good, open-access journals do provide a large quantity for those who are willing to sift through to find priceless information. In my opinion, knowledge is not something to be withheld, and if there’s anything that’s beneficial to the community, it should be freely open to those who seek it. Revision: Although the quality may not be as good, open-access journals provide a large quantity of knowledge for those are willing to seek it. They don’t allow for the withholding of information which is something that many people may agree is a right because they may believe that universal knowledge is beneficial to the community. Reflection: By getting rid of “in my opinion,” and instead saying how “many [other] people may agree,” my position is still there without making it a personal opinion based on my morals.

The first target area that I am focusing on is C3- A confusing idea, whether due to syntax, logic, or underdevelopment. My original excerpt is from my Analysis 2 on the Tempest, "Because of these implications, I better understand that: while humans may often be thought of as the smarter, stronger, and better race of animal, we wouldn’t be able to survive if it weren’t for the lesser animals around us." My revision of this excerpt is: "Because of these implications, I better understand that: while humans think of themselves as the smarter, stronger, and over-all better race of animal, they would not be able to survive without the creatures that they believe to be "lesser"; Also, these "lesser" animals are, in fact, not lesser, but equally as important as humans are." During the Paragraph Workshops that we held, it was brought up by several other students that this sentence in my original analytical paragraph needed some work because the way I had worded it was confusing. It seemed to be contradictory that I had just talked about these other creatures being superior, but then immediately called them lesser. I changed this to "lesser" to show that it's more of an implication by humans, themselves, that the other creatures are lesser than them.